JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, M. - This is a revision against the judgment and order dated December 17, 1976 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, in Appeal No. 108 of 1974-75/Mainpuri. 2. The facts are briefly that a suit under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was decreed ex parte against the present revisionist, Bhagwat Dayal on September 30, 1972. A restoration application was filed on May 9, 1973 and rejected by the trial court which held that a registered notice had been sent to the defendant and, therefore, service of summons in the original case was sufficient. 3. A first appeal against this order has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner who has agreed with this finding. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that defendant had no knowledge of the court proceedings against him as had not received the registered notice. This argument cannot be sustained in view of the concurrent findings of the two lower courts in this regard. 5. It has further been argued that the plaint itself was not maintainable in view of the bar of Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The plaintiff could not be deed to be the tenant of the land in dispute in view of the fact that consolidation had taken place in the village and From CH-45 which had been issued by the authorities concerned had named the defendant as tenant over the land in dispute. This was in spite of the fact that Form CH-23 prepared by the consolidation authorities had named the plaintiff as tenant. 6. Learned counsel has cited a ruling the Board of Revenue reported in 1978 R.D. 48 in support of his contention that Form CH-45 is final can must prevail over Form CH-45 is final and must prevail over Form CH-23. 7. With all respect, I find myself unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Member in the ruling cited. Form CH-45 is merely a final record prepared by the consolidation authorities before the proceedings are denotified and does not represent the final adjudication made by them in respect of the title. This adjudication is authoritatively incorporated in Form CH-23 of which Form CH-45 should merely be a copy. Form CH-45 is merely a final record prepared by the consolidation authorities before the proceedings are denotified and does not represent the final adjudication made by them in respect of the title. This adjudication is authoritatively incorporated in Form CH-23 of which Form CH-45 should merely be a copy. Any discrepancy between the two forms must be deemed to be a clerical error in the preparation of Form CH-45 and the same must be disregarded, in favour of the position obtaining in Form CH-23. 8. The revision application is therefore, rejected.